Wouldn't they still have to comply with applicable federal regulations? I think the runway at SNA might play a role in your 777 scenario as well lol. JSX simply is operating a business as allowed under the law. There is nothing "shady" about it, nor is there any "stretching" of regulations or law for the sole benefit of JSX. And I'm pretty sure there are no camels or geese...
Do JSX pax counts apply to any SNA passenger or flight total caps?
If not, then that is probably what this is all about. OC nimby(s) do not want to see caps eroded and are using land use regulations to enforce them.
One thing's for sure. It's not about safety, security, and accountability...[/quoteI never said it was about anything other than what SNA could Justify. And?
Maybe SNA could no longer justify what JSX was doing? All the other Airlines might care and ask why is JSX beong allowed to play by their rules and NOT by the same rules everybody else plays by? Especially since NONE of us knows what went on behind the scenes. Were I an ariline ops manager at SNA for another regional or major? I might ask the same thing. Especially if I'm paying for gate rental? And they're NOT. Do you get where I'm coming from? It's not a mater of Like or dislike. It's a matter of Business. If they can do it? Then I'd better be able to do it! especially if they're hauling passengers just like I'm doing from the Same Airport and I wouldn't care to where. That's not my problem. Now I'm not saying that happened because I don't know BUT? That could have been in the conversation. Who among us KNOWS?
What is the law JSX is breaking? It's kind of important in this whole thing...
"Law." What is it?
The are not breaking any law - but the put things together in what is most likely an unexpected way when the laws an regulations were written.
Part 135 of course exists to allow an airline to run it's defined type of operations.
Part 380 that keeps getting harped on was written with the thought that Joe's travel was going to sell travel packages to Disney or somewhere, and arrange a public charter aircraft under this section to have their passengers travel. Why would an "airline" ever need to use this part, since the would own the aircraft already? They would not be expected to.
The JSX folks realized that they could own a parent company that acts as the Part 380 travel agency, and a subsidiary company that is a Part 135 carrier they could do this type of operation. Putting things in the law together to do something that was not obvious, expected or intended = loophole.
Loophole: an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules
The same as someone using tax loopholes - the are not breaking any law, but the outcome is not what the writers of the law/regs expected.
Do I think the FAA or lawmakers are in any rush to change this? NO
Do I have any issue with JSX running this operation? NO
Is SNA in their rights to not accept this type of operation at the FBO that sounds like it is has agreed limits on passenger numbers being violated right now? Yes